In this paper, we consider one-round protocols for reliable message transmission (RMT) when t out of n = 2t + 1 available channels are controlled by an adversary. We show impossibility of constructing such a protocol that achieves a transmission rate of less than Θ(n) for constant-size messages and arbitrary reliability parameter. In addition, we show how to improve two existing protocols for RMT to allow for either larger messages or reduced field sizes.
Related workRMT has also been studied in [9,10]. The protocol in [10] is based on listdecoding of folded Reed-Solomon codes, but although it attains the optimal transmission rate, the computational cost for the receiver to recover the message is exponential in the number of channels. The work [9] contains bounds and constructions for both the secure and the reliable-only settings. In addition, they achieve this while tolerating a mixed adversary, giving more fine-grained control of the adversarial assumptions.Although this paper is only concerned with RMT, we also direct the reader to related works on secure message transmission; that is, protocols that also offer privacy. This additional guarantee comes at a cost. As shown by [3], perfect security for n = 2t + 1 requires at least two rounds, and a single-round protocol can only offer security in the case n ≥ 3t + 1. In the former setting, Agarwal et al.[1] gave a perfectly secure two-round protocol that achieves optimal performance asymptotically, albeit at a high computational cost. A computationally efficient protocol was subsequently achieved by Kurosawa and Suzuki [8] using the concept of pseudobases. This idea was also taken up by [11], who obtained further improvements, reducing the minimally required message size from O(n 2 log n) to O(n log n).The setting where privacy is perfect, but reliability is not, was initially handled by [4] under the assumption that channels support multicast. The proposed solution, however, was inefficient for certain values of t and n. This was rectified in [13], where an efficient protocol for these values was given.
Preliminaries
Model assumptionsWe assume that Alice and Bob are connected via n = 2t + 1 simple channels, meaning that the channels allow both Alice and Bob to transmit data, but